Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al
ORDER striking plaintiff's 83 Motion for Default Judgment; striking plaintiff's 85 Motion for Default Judgment filed by attorney Timothy Billick, who has not entered an appearance; filings contain significant errors signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) cc Timothy Billick
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case Nos. C16-729-RAJ; C16-1177RAJ; C16-1272-RAJ; C16-1352-RAJ
DARRELL GUNDERMAN, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on numerous filings submitted by Timothy
Billick, counsel for Plaintiff. Billick has not entered an appearance in the above-
captioned cases by complying with Local Civil Rule 83.2. Accordingly, the Court
STRIKES all filings submitted by Billick. Case No. C16-729, Dkt. ## 83, 85; Case No.
C16-1177, Dkt. ## 44, 46; Case No. C16-1272, Dkt. ## 50, 52, 54, 56, 58; Case No. C16-
1352, Dkt. ## 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62.
In addition to Billick’s impermissible submissions, many of these filings contain
significant errors. In Case No. C16-1272, the docket entry for three of the pending
motions misidentifies the party to whom the motion itself pertains. Dkt. # 52, 54, 56.
The same is true for one of the pending motions in Case No. C16-1352. Dkt. # 62.
These errors are additional reasons to STRIKE these motions.
Further, two of the pending motions in Case No. C16-1352 request default
judgment against parties who are not named as defendants in that case. Dkt. # 50, 52.
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Sarah Larson and Liam McDonald, but they are
ORDER – 1
defendants in Case No. C16-1351. Again, these are independent grounds to STRIKE
Lastly, one of the exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion for default
against Defendant Greg Gordon contains a Civil Service Status Report that pertains to a
different defendant, Reina Marroquin. Case No. C16-729, Dkt. # 86-1 at 2. This is yet
another reason to STRIKE the motion.
The Court will not tolerate further filings that contain errors of this magnitude and
frequency. The Court will consider denying any future motion that contains the same or
similar errors. The Court also notes that counsel for Plaintiff is seeking attorneys’ fees
for the work they have performed in these cases. In the event that default judgment is
appropriate and counsel are eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees, the Court will keep in
mind the subpar work that counsel have performed in calculating what (if any) amount of
fees is appropriate.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?